California’s New Abortion Bill Is Unsettling, Expensive, and Immoral

California Gov. Gavin Newsom looks on during a news conference with California attorney General Xavier Becerra at the California State Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., on Aug. 16, 2019. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Commentary

California Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed a bill requiring public colleges and universities to provide the abortion pill by 2023, provided it’s funded.

Not only is this a poor use of grant money, but, since abortion rates are the lowest they have been in years, this bill shows how much Newsom is pushing a progressive agenda, rather than helping students.

Local news sources report that 34 University of California and California State University campuses must start offering the abortion pill on Jan. 1, 2023, dependent on donor and grant-based funding.

According to Good Day Sacramento, Newsom signed the bill, writing, “As other states and the federal government go backward, restricting reproductive freedom, in California, we are moving forward, expanding access and reaffirming a woman’s right to choose. We’re removing barriers to reproductive health—increasing access on college campuses and using technology to modernize how patients interact with providers.”

As “convenient” as this might sound to lawmakers and students, this bill is a logistical and financial nightmare—to say nothing of the moral issue of abortion itself. For starters, the abortion pill induces a miscarriage, essentially. Women who have miscarried know this is a scary, messy, and sad process. It’s not something I would want to encourage women to endure on college campuses.

The president of Save California, a family rights group, said: “With chemical abortions, would-be mommies are turned into novice abortionists. Women always suffer and babies always perish.” College campuses need not be mini abortion clinics; they need to be places that foster education.

While the bill is supposed to be funded by donors, Good Day Sacramento reports that California State University campuses see the financial cost as nearly insurmountable:

“The law will only go into effect if a newly created Reproductive Health Fund raises nearly $10.3 million from private donors by January 1, 2020. The total cost, according to the Bill Analysis, would be funded using grant money and private donations, not General Fund money or student fees. ... Some of that grant money, up to $200,000 to each Student Health Center, would allow staff to assess facility and training needs, buy equipment, make facility improvements, establish protocols, create educational materials for patients, and train staff. Each UC and CSU would also get a grant to cover various direct and indirect costs, including providing 24-hour backup medical support by telephone to patients.”

Each campus would need an ultrasound machine, totaling nearly $1 million.

To make matters worse, the University of California campuses estimate there will be “insufficient” funds to cover the costs to implement this bill and “without funding, the student health centers will incur ongoing costs in the range of $2.2 [million] to $3.2 [million] annually. Unless financing is made available post-2023, by the state or foundation, this cost will fall to students.”

California’s previous governor, Jerry Brown, vetoed the measure in 2018 for a number of good reasons, including the most obvious: He pointed out there were plenty of abortion clinics near college campuses, and implementing this bill placed an incredible financial and moral burden on the institutions.

Finally, when it comes to abortion itself, why is Newsom so eager to make abortion unsafe, common, and widely available on college campuses? According to the Guttmacher Institute, abortion rates have been declining for the past several years, both in popularity and statistics.

Instead of putting all this effort into creating facilities and training staff to provide ways for teenagers to have an abortion between Biology 101 and English Comprehension, why not encourage abstinence, safe sex, or even adoption on campus? Those options are far less expensive and morally sound.

It’s not a state school’s job to sanction abortion, and it certainly isn’t Newsom’s job to provide a way for kids to cover the costs of something that will create an atmosphere on campus of anxiety and sadness.

Nicole Russell is a freelance writer and mother of four. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, Politico, The Daily Beast, and The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @russell_nm.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.